↓ Skip to main content

Does habituation matter? Emotional processing theory and exposure therapy for acrophobia

Overview of attention for article published in Behaviour Research & Therapy, July 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 X user
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
279 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Does habituation matter? Emotional processing theory and exposure therapy for acrophobia
Published in
Behaviour Research & Therapy, July 2010
DOI 10.1016/j.brat.2010.07.009
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Clinically, there is wide subscription to emotional processing theory (EPT; Foa & Kozak, 1986) as a model of therapeutic effectiveness of exposure therapy: EPT purports that exposure is maximal when (1) fear is activated (IFA), (2) fear subsides within sessions (WSH), and (3) fear subsides between sessions (BSH). This study examined these assumptions, using in vivo exposure therapy for 44 students scoring high on acrophobia measures. Results indicated that no EPT variables were consistently predictive of treatment outcome. No support was found for IFA or WSH; measures of BSH were predictive of short-term change, but these effects were attenuated at follow-up. Furthermore, EPT variables were not predictive of each other as previously hypothesized, indicating the variables are not functionally related.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 279 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Sweden 2 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Israel 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 272 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 49 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 47 17%
Student > Bachelor 41 15%
Researcher 36 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 7%
Other 40 14%
Unknown 47 17%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 167 60%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 3%
Computer Science 6 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 1%
Neuroscience 4 1%
Other 22 8%
Unknown 68 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 December 2020.
All research outputs
#4,871,382
of 34,526,284 outputs
Outputs from Behaviour Research & Therapy
#936
of 3,325 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,942
of 150,980 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behaviour Research & Therapy
#9
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,526,284 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,325 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 150,980 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.